(no subject)
Feb. 21st, 2007 01:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
teddywolfSaturday night at the convention I was talking with somebody I like from one of the con's interest groups. I was eating with my wife, she was social, and the topic came around to politics. I think my friends and readers know I generally enjoy a good political conversation, so long as it involves respect and some level of politeness. This time was no exception. My wife discreetly fled the table, ostensibly in search of a very young redhead.
The conversation was noddling along, minding its own business, when she said, "I think Bush did a better job than the Democrats would have done if they'd been in the White House. I mean, when the terrorists hit New York, what would Al Gore have done? Tried to appease them? Would we have gone to fight the terrorists?"
I don't know if my surprise showed on my face. I consider her to be an intelligent woman who pays attention to the news, and here she was spouting a GOP talking point. She was not being combative about it, this is simply what she knew. So I braced myself inside just a bit, and started talking. There was some back and forth during this, but the gist of what I said was this:
"First off, there was no problem with us invading Afghanistan. The Taliban were sheltering Al Qaeda., and that's who hit us. I thought it was a good course of action at the time. But then in March, April of 2002 I started hearing rhetoric about Saddam Hussein, and I thought, 'What does Saddam have to do with any of this? He wasn't involved in 9/11 at all!' As time went on it really looked like we had a timetable to invade Iraq, as troops were moved into place in January of 2003. I thought to myself, 'We're looking at a March or April invasion.'
"I remember hearing about the off chance that some of Hussein's mansions were used as weapons labs. Now, I concede the possibility, but really, not many people want dangerous materials manufactured in their homes, no matter how big the place is.
"Now bear in mind, when we invaded Iraq there had been UN weapon inspectors there for a while. At the time the US invaded, the inspectors said they'd only need some 6 weeks? I think it was 6 weeks more to finish their inspection. We invaded. Now think about that - Mr. Bush basically said, publicly, that Iraq was too dangerous for us to allow those weapon inspectors to have those 6 weeks. Now look where we are.
"As to the charge that the Dems wouldn't hit back, I remember back in 1998 when Mr. Clinton bombed a chemical plant, because he believed it was making chemical weapons. He also launched some missiles at some empty tents where bin Laden was supposed to be at the time. And do you remember what the Republican response was back then? It was Wag The Dog. Was Mr. Clinton wagging the dog? Maybe a little, I can't say he was unaware of how one might impact the other trouble he was having then, but he was serious about counterterrorism. So was Al Gore, and he would have continued in Mr. Clinton's footsteps. He would have kept focus.
"When the White House changed hands, Clinton's people told the new guys that they should make stopping terrorism their number one priority. Al Gore mentioned he used to see the Presidential daily briefings, and he'd never seen one with as unambiguous a title as 'Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US'. Mr. Clinton hasn't said anything publicly, but he probably feels the same.
"Another thing: September 10, 2001, the Bush Administration was about to propose legislation that would have cut the funds for counterterrorism.
"So no, I don't think that Democrats would be soft on terrorism. I think they'd have a much better record."
After the conversation, she told me, "You know, that was one of the better explanations I've heard in favor of Democrats on this."
Do I think all Dems are better than all GOPies? No. Do I think they are the best party ever? No. Do I agree with them on all issues? Nope. Do I think they're generally better as a party than the other guys with a big party? You better believe it.
The conversation was noddling along, minding its own business, when she said, "I think Bush did a better job than the Democrats would have done if they'd been in the White House. I mean, when the terrorists hit New York, what would Al Gore have done? Tried to appease them? Would we have gone to fight the terrorists?"
I don't know if my surprise showed on my face. I consider her to be an intelligent woman who pays attention to the news, and here she was spouting a GOP talking point. She was not being combative about it, this is simply what she knew. So I braced myself inside just a bit, and started talking. There was some back and forth during this, but the gist of what I said was this:
"First off, there was no problem with us invading Afghanistan. The Taliban were sheltering Al Qaeda., and that's who hit us. I thought it was a good course of action at the time. But then in March, April of 2002 I started hearing rhetoric about Saddam Hussein, and I thought, 'What does Saddam have to do with any of this? He wasn't involved in 9/11 at all!' As time went on it really looked like we had a timetable to invade Iraq, as troops were moved into place in January of 2003. I thought to myself, 'We're looking at a March or April invasion.'
"I remember hearing about the off chance that some of Hussein's mansions were used as weapons labs. Now, I concede the possibility, but really, not many people want dangerous materials manufactured in their homes, no matter how big the place is.
"Now bear in mind, when we invaded Iraq there had been UN weapon inspectors there for a while. At the time the US invaded, the inspectors said they'd only need some 6 weeks? I think it was 6 weeks more to finish their inspection. We invaded. Now think about that - Mr. Bush basically said, publicly, that Iraq was too dangerous for us to allow those weapon inspectors to have those 6 weeks. Now look where we are.
"As to the charge that the Dems wouldn't hit back, I remember back in 1998 when Mr. Clinton bombed a chemical plant, because he believed it was making chemical weapons. He also launched some missiles at some empty tents where bin Laden was supposed to be at the time. And do you remember what the Republican response was back then? It was Wag The Dog. Was Mr. Clinton wagging the dog? Maybe a little, I can't say he was unaware of how one might impact the other trouble he was having then, but he was serious about counterterrorism. So was Al Gore, and he would have continued in Mr. Clinton's footsteps. He would have kept focus.
"When the White House changed hands, Clinton's people told the new guys that they should make stopping terrorism their number one priority. Al Gore mentioned he used to see the Presidential daily briefings, and he'd never seen one with as unambiguous a title as 'Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US'. Mr. Clinton hasn't said anything publicly, but he probably feels the same.
"Another thing: September 10, 2001, the Bush Administration was about to propose legislation that would have cut the funds for counterterrorism.
"So no, I don't think that Democrats would be soft on terrorism. I think they'd have a much better record."
After the conversation, she told me, "You know, that was one of the better explanations I've heard in favor of Democrats on this."
Do I think all Dems are better than all GOPies? No. Do I think they are the best party ever? No. Do I agree with them on all issues? Nope. Do I think they're generally better as a party than the other guys with a big party? You better believe it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-21 07:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-21 09:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-21 09:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-21 09:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-21 09:36 pm (UTC)A lot of Democratic stances have gotten a lot better IMO over the years. Some have gotten worse.